1 2026:CGHC:24633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4266 of 2022 1 - Prahlad S/o Pyarilal Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Bilaigarh Tahsil - Dabhara, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Sakti District - Sakti, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dabhara, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer (W.R.D) Kalma Barrage Raigarh Division, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Kamal Kishore Patel, Advocate For State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 18.06.2026 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation within a stipulated time frame and to extend the benefit of Section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the owner of land bearing Khasra Nos. 2/2, 3/3 and 5/3, admeasuring total area 0.392 hectare, situated at Village Bilaigarh, Tahsil Dabhara, District Sakti. The said land has been acquired vide award dated 28.01.2021 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 01/A-82/2017-18 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Dabhara. The copy of the award and compensation chart have been annexed as Annexure P/1. It is further stated that private industries have been consuming water since 01.04.2016 and information in this regard obtained under the Right to Information Act has been annexed as Annexure P/2. The petitioner submits that despite representations, the benefit of Section 80 of the Act of 2013 has not been extended to him. A copy of the last representation has been annexed as Annexure P/3. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to decide the representation within a time-bound period. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- 3 “10.1 That this Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities for taking decision on petitioners claim under Section 80 of Act 2013 in light of the judgment laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of GAYABAI DIGAMBAR PURI (DIED) THR. LR VERSUS THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ORS decided on 03/01/2022. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 4. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the acquisition of land and in light of the provisions of Section 80 of the Act of 2013, the petitioner is entitled for interest from the date of dispossession till payment/disbursal of compensation. It is further submitted that despite several representations, the competent authority has failed to decide the same. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gayabai Digambar Puri (Died) Thr. LRs v. The Executive Engineer & Ors., decided on 03.01.2022. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law, if any representation is made and pending before the competent authority. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, without expressing any opinion on merits of the claim, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event the 4 petitioner moves a fresh representation before respondent Nos.2 & 3 claiming interest for the period from the date of passing of the award till its actual disbursal, within a period of four weeks from today, the said respondents shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law and applicable rules, by a reasoned and speaking order, at the earliest, preferably within a period of four months thereafter. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the entitlement of the petitioner on merits. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha